Skip to main content

About your Search

20120926
20121004
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
to get ahead of things, the plaintiffs here are attorneys, civil rights activists and others who are in regular contact with people overseas particularly people who might well be the subject of electronic surveillance by the federal government and they are challenging the law that allows electronic surveillance, this wiretapping because they're concerned that their case will be picked up. they're claiming to have standing to challenge this law because even though the surveillance might be directed overseas to people they're talking to get their dedication will get picked up in the course of that surveillance and so therefore they have the right to challenge it in court. that is the standing issue we we are dealing with. just to get to the merits for a minute, and the aftermath of the exposÉ in the mid-70's about various abuses in the intelligence community and in short in short is set up a system by which the executive branch would have to go to the court surveillance court here in d.c. and get permission when they wanted to do wiretapping for national security purpose to give s
ability to protect people without invading civil liberties. and we're always, you know, working on that, what's the right balance there as well. so it is, it's a big job. >> will you stay in the administration if the president's reelected? >> i don't answer questions like that. >> if you weren't homeland security secretary, what job would you want? attorney general? >> again, i don't do what ifs. [laughter] >> what's your dream? >> my dream? you really -- i think i want to focus on this job. this job has every day is an adventure. so it has a lot of elements to it. >> okay. madam secretary, thanks very much. >> thank you. prison. [applause] >> thank you for that, madam secretary and shane, that was a great interview. my name is tim hartman, i want to welcome everybody today as one of the co-hosts of this event. we're going to move on shortly, but before we do, i just want to thank our underwriter for this event, for supporting it. our underwriter today exclusively is medapp, and we wouldn't be able to do events of this quality without the support of underwriters, so while we do some log
in it's approach, and we believe it's not the right way to do it. if you look at precedence using the civil aviation organization for consensus building on international aviation issues, is it much more effective way to do this. we have been clear both on p the record, off the record, and at every level with our e.u. counterparts that this is unacceptable, that we do not support it. if you look closely at the reaction around the world, you'll see that we have a lot of other nations in concert with the united states who also believe the unilateral imposition of that emissions trading scheme is inappropriate. finally, there appears to be some recognition on the european side of late that there are real consequences for doing this. we will continue to press for the appropriate avenues for the resolution of an issue like this. we are continuing to make it clear that we have serious concerns and do not believe it should be implemented, and i think the consequences of the european union moving ahead unilaterally are much butter under by the e.u. these days. >> thank you. >> mr. chairma
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3